The difference is not as pronounced as in the picture. If you're used to 4000K as neutral white, yellowish white is 3000K, amber-ish white is 2700K. Only below the temperature of fire (cca 1500K) is when blue fully disappears and you get actual orange or red. And pure yellow is not a possible black body (incandescence) spectrum (that is, it does not correspond to any color temperature) so even though you can set an RGB bulb to that, buy monochromatic yellow LEDs or go under a low-pressure sodium vapor lamp, such lighting feels unnatural.
- Posts
- 19
- Comments
- 2103
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 19
- Comments
- 2103
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
Warm white is usually 1800 K to 3000 K. What you showed is less Kelvin than the color temperature of fire (1500 K). We don't have a color temperature word for that, but "red" works. Of course, such light has no blue component (helps control the cicardian cycle) and is pretty much monochromatic with CRI of <5.
"You want cold white or warm white?"
"I need a cold light source, like an LED. I'm afraid the fixture would melt if I put incandescent in there." (Yes, some E14 fixtures in cheap plastic bathroom mirrors etc. only take up to 10-20 W and have a warning sticker)
"What, higher temperature is colder?" (It's not their fault though that in nature, white and blue things 🧊 are generally colder than yellow and orange things 🔥)
This scale feels wrong. 4000K is neutral white and should have no hue. Of course, that depends subjectively on what the light around is. 6000K should only be in the center if you're outside a lot. And the difference between 6000K and 10000K is greatly exaggerated. Not even the visible portion of "infinite" Kelvin is that blue if 6000K is calibrated to white.
KDE's Kiki feels offended
You're right, at that size the AI is not very concerning either.
Do your and your partner's names both start with L?
Thanks, those give me ideas for making more operator logos like these (No AI but mostly CC0 (public domain) because my creative input is questionable, some are just tracing of scaled-down images with a few touch-ups; I'm not too concerned about sharing non-FOSS trademarks under a permissive licence at such low res)
In that way, yes, but the logos that feature small text (Groovy, Lua) didn't turn out well at all.
Here's the list of logos row by row so you don't have to awkwardly ask what they are
Steam (not FOSS)"LL" (likely OP's own design, not a FOSS project)ZigbeeObsidian (not FOSS)BraveProtonpass
TailscaleHome AssistantRaspberry Pi (not open HW)Ubiquiti (not open HW)Android (not really FOSS)Signal
DigitalOcean (service)UbuntuLinuxClaude (not FOSS)ProxmoxNextcloudJellyfin (rotated)
TriliumNginxTabbyBashDebian (rotated)Docker
NodeJSPythonHomeBoxXPipePiHolePrometheusGrafana
not in gallery of printable sticker images
What is the "LL" monogram in the second one? I crudely recreated it to reverse-image-search but got no results.
Someone got the short end of the stick
You'll satisfy the teacher as often as possible and get good grades. I want to feel right as often as possible, which means I'll disrupt the class often and get called out during the parents-teachers meeting.
Did you look closely at Jellyfin? The things in the dark are OK, they add flavor, which was an artistic choice − the problem is unrealistic silhouettes of people & animals in one mosaic piece. Also, it's rotated on the laptop, and so is Debian.
The hand and face (bottom right) on Gimp is way more awful.
Looking closely at Perl, it seems there are photorealistic (hard to tell if AI) photos toned blue, abstract shapes that might be edited/vectorized photos, and in the bottom right there's a bead necklace that's so unshapely it's an AI giveaway. Well spotted, it was indeed made using AI-generated images!
FOSS source is here.
The second "S" in "FOSS" is "software". You did not publish software, just its output: bitmap assets needed to print the stickers. Thanks for CC-licensing your creative work but source would mean showing what's under the hood. We don't know how you sourced the images used in each triangular tile: generated to best correspond with AI? Matching pieces from Wikimedia Commons photos?
Edit: Look closely at Arch for example. It's clearly just the logo placed in a hexagon, approximated by a mosaic of 24 triangles with AI images of differing quality. Is that snow or whipped cream? How can PCB traces be as blurry as watercolor and go nowhere? At least they're topical: for Arch the prompt was probably "mountain OR architecture OR arch OR technology".
Presumably, the process for each tile is this:
- you make some direct artistic choices to create the base image (place the logo in a hexagon, choose a background color, add a border)
- you make some indirect artistic choices: pick keywords/themes for the AI to use
- you use a script to divide the hexagon into 24 triangles (presumably with "overscan")
- you use generative AI to stylize the triangles' bitmaps according to thw keywords, perhaps regenerating bad output
- you use a script to reassemble the image
To consider this open source, I'd expect you to at least post the scripts you used in steps 3 and 5. To consider this good open source, it should contain a guide detailing this process, best with examples. I'd expect the AI part will be "bring your own model" but you could tell which one you used and its settings.
The idea is creative and "human" enough for me not to condemn it. "FOSS" or not though, you should disclose use of AI, especially since you're selling the printed stickers.
Edit: yup, it's made of AI images
This is not an AI-generated pic, it's a photo taken with a real camera. The logos, however, are hexagons divided into 24 triangles each, and these triangles contain often thematically related (e. g. lions for Brave) photos or photorealistic AI images (the info I found online does not state either way) cropped to best correspond to what the triangle would contain if it just had the original logo. Basically, that corner of the whale surrounded by white was taken from a face photo (or AI pic).
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I have a red bulb too. It's "handmade" by removing thick red rubber from a "golf ball" decorative 7W CFL and stretching it over a similarly-sized 6W 2700K LED that has instant start and higher light output (not to mention, the taut rubber won't send glass ball shards into a mercury-vapor-filled tube if it happens to fall). It is not as monochromatic as pure red LEDs, I think it's close to what the phosphor-based red ones emit (with a lower efficiency of course since I discard the blue and green while they turn almost all blue into red and no green) and those are marketed as cicardian too. I have to avoid looking straight into it though: the pupil is wide open because rods don't react strongly to red light so long-wavelength (red) cones get massively overloaded and I see a green spot for a while.